Rachna Gupta ORDER
Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
1. Present is the Appeal against the Order of Commissioner communicated vide their letter No. 4649 dated 08.06.2018 vide which the request of the appellant to cross examining the person as named in their application dated 20.12.2017 has been declined.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco falling under Chapter 24 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The income tax authorities had conducted an investigation against the appellant in September 2013 during which the appellant had surrendered unaccounted income of Rs. 129.41 crores. In pursuance of the said information alongwith the documents received by the Excise Commissionerate, Udaipur from the income tax Department, the Department after necessary investigations, alleged that the assessee/appellant has evaded the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,63,06,00,000/- in respect of the notified goods i.e. chewing tobacco produced/manufactured by them without declaring the number of machines and part of section/place of manufacture and cleared without recording the production in the stock, without assessing and without payment of duty thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 6, 7 and 9 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 thus rendered these goods cleared without payment of duty i.e. being clandestine removal, liable to confiscation under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 18 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010.
3. Resultantly, a Show Cause Notice bearing No. 5341 dated 03.05.2017 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of the alleged unpaid, aforesaid amount of duty alongwith appropriate interest and the penalties under Central Excise Act, 1944 and also under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. After being served with the said Show Cause Notice, the appellant made the request for cross examination vide the letter dated 20.12.2017. The said request was declined vide the order under challenge, hence the present Appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Narasimhan, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. H.C. Saini, Ld. DR for the Department.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has impressed upon the Order of Hon'ble High Court Rajasthan at Jodhpur in a civil writ petition No. 11179/2018 titled as M/s. Miraj Products Vs. Union of India dated 14.08.2018 vide which this Tribunal has been directed to decide the Appeal of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the Order. It is submitted that before this Tribunal also, the application praying for early hearing of impugned Appeal were filed but they never got listed. Resultantly, the aforementioned writ petition was filed and the Appeal accordingly has to be disposed of in terms of directions therein. It is further submitted that the Order under challenge is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Show Cause Notice in the instant case has proposed the demand by placing reliance on various letters/reports due to which vide letter of 20.12.2017 the appellant requested the Department for being provided with an opportunity to cross examine the authors of those letters to examine the veracity of the contents of letters/reports. However, the permission has been denied vide the impugned order. The findings that "on maki........